The Real Problem Behind The Pentagon's UFO Files: 'Cloak & Dagger' Secrecy- Disinfo

What's the real problem behind constant misinterpretations and lack of transparency to do with the Pentagon's UFO files?  In a nutshell, the Pentagon's duplicity and disinformation, i.e. claiming it "disbanded" a once covert program to investigate unidentified aerial phenomena - then in the next breath "renaming it and tucking it inside the Office of Naval Intelligence". (Sunday Denver Post, August 2, p. 8a):

Oddly, while Pentagon officials will not discuss the program -  which remains unclassified, but deals with classified matters -  it emerged last month in a Senate intelligence report.   This referenced the "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force" (UAPTF). According to the Senate report, the task force (ibid.):

"Was to standardize collection and reporting on sighting of unexplained aerial vehicles and report at least some of its findings to the public every six months."

To jog memories, in 2017 the NY Times disclosed the existence of a predecessor unit called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.  DoD officials insisted at the time that the unit - and its $22 million in annual funding- had "lapsed after 2012".   Again, this was disinformation.  As the Post account notes (ibid.):

"People working with the program said it was still in operation in 2017 and beyond, statements later confirmed by the Defense Department."

The program actually began in 2007 under the Defense Intelligence Agency and was placed within the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, which remains responsible for its oversight.  However, its "actual coordination with the intelligence community will be carried out by the Office of Naval Intelligence, as described in the Senate budget bill."


Let's pause and recall back in 2017 the Pentagon  released images shown on major news networks (ABC, CBS) of peculiar aerial craft. Therein one beheld  footage of a craft actually rotating in space as it moved at high speed and exclamations heard from a pilot in a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet.  While a NY Times account described it as an "aircraft" let's be clear this was no  conventional aircraft  in terms of aerodynamic  performance.   Indeed, my Jayne's Encyclopedia of Aircraft shows no such object which can perform rotations while moving at high speed.  In terms of physics, we are talking about an object able to undergo linear as well as angular velocity changes simultaneously.

This is also a huge reason the likes of Sen. Marco Rubio is a certified moron for trying to claim - in the latest Pentagon UFO iteration - that the "actual reasons" for these aerial manifestations are "likely more boring" than people believe. I.e. they are likely just the (technologically superior)  craft of a foreign nation.   Right!  And did he know this lame excuse has been around in one form or other since the 1952 Washington, D.C. mass sightings?  Does he really believe if those were just "enemy air craft" the U.S. Air Force would allow them to penetrate our air space for decades with impunity?  

Despite that, Rubio actually told a CBS affiliate in Miami this month that he was "primarily concerned about reports of unidentified craft over U.S. military bases".  Adding, "it's in the government's interest to find out who is responsible."

He then (ibid.) "expressed concerns that China or Russia had made some technological leap that allows them to conduct this sort of activity".  This was based on his remarkable observation that said craft "exhibited technologies not in the U.S arsenal."

As I said, a certified moron. 

The Navy pilots in the earlier reported incidents could actually be heard trying to understand what they were seeing. “I have no idea what I saw....it accelerated like nothing I've ever seen" said one, the other adding: "There’s a whole fleet of them,”. Defense officials declined to release the location and date of the incident but we know it occurred in 2004.

 I watched the clip multiple times and it was clear the event disclosed a real object,  not a mirage, and not any kind of prosaic or known phenomenon (e.g. ball lighting). As a former investigator for the National Investigating Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) I often had occasion to conduct investigations of claimed "UFOs" seen in Barbados. In fact, I did a detailed investigation of one particular object - visible to a Founder member of the Barbados Astronomical Society-  which I concluded was  Kugelblitz or ball lighting. This was published in  an issue of The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada in 1980  see e.g.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980JRASC..74..168S

Let me note here, as reported in the Post piece,  Luis Elizondo,  a former director of the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.(AATIP), resigned in October, 2017.  This was after ten years with the program. He also "confirmed the new task force evolved from the advanced aerospace program."    According to Elizondo (ibid.):

"It no longer has to hide in the shadows. It will have a new transparency."

Well, let us hope it does and minus all the "cloak and dagger" disinfo and other baloney. Including distracting bollocks spouted by Rubio.  This is particularly important given Elizondo "is among a small group of government officials and scientists with security clearance who say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on Earth with materials retrieved for study."

Recall it was solar physicist Peter Sturrock  who documented in his superb monograph (The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence)  all the ways serious examination of such materials is feasible and the approaches needed, e.g.

Search Results

Web results

Is Scientific UFO Inquiry Possible? - Brane Space

And here is where we need the input of astrophysicists and other physicists involved in the UAPTF program, much more than political mouthpieces, posturing imbeciles and know nothings.   This is to assess whether such materials actually are of unknown origin, i.e. not terrestrial.

For example, as the Post article points out the astrophysicists involved (often as consultants) "aren't being paid sufficient attention". One such person is Eric W. Davis who has worked as a subcontractor and then consultant for the Pentagon UFO program since 2007.  He has come out publicly and stated (ibid.):

"In some cases examination of recovered materials had so far failed to determine their source"

This led him to conclude:  "We couldn't make it ourselves."

In other words, the recovered material was literally out of this world.

What about "hard evidence"?  Again, you can blame the lack of transparency of the program. As we read:

"The constraints on discussing classified aspects of programs have put those who have studied UFOs in the position of stating their views without presenting any hard evidence."

Translation: The hard evidence, likely actual parts of the craft, exist but are placed under a classified umbrella so no one can reference them without violating national security laws. What are the powers-that -be afraid of? Probably what a Brookings Institution report from the 1960s already warned about, i.e. that humans may not be able to confront the truth of an actual extraterrestrial civilization and such awareness may cause human civilization itself to "collapse".   We may firmly insist we can "handle the truth" but our devoted, benevolent, patriarchal authorities firmly believe we cannot.  So they will protect our little brains from learning other more advanced life forms exist - not of this world. Obviously, our congress critters are given the benefit of the doubt given that as recently as March, astrophysicist Eric Davis "delivered classified briefings about retrievals from off -world vehicles not made on this Earth."

All of this brings up Dr. J.  Allen Hynek's revelation (some years ago)  on how the "in public" UFO skeptic Carl Sagan had admitted to him that he really did accept the validity of UFOs but "couldn't admit it in front of colleagues."  See e.g.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76926

Why would the Pentagon or DoD be interested in such objects at all?  Obviously, any serious department of defense would be remiss not to - if strange unidentified objects had been on record invading a nation's airspace-- and by military pilots.

The irony is that by continuing to hide critical aspects of the phenomenon from the public, the military and national security state may actually be undermining the effort to learn more about it. Not to mention possibly putting our infrastructure at risk.  

Readers can access one of the UFO  file videos here: https://youtu.be/Ce6ZevfbIK0

See also:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2019/02/why-harvards-top-astronomer-avi-loeb-is.html

Seriously? WSJ's McGurn Attacks Stoneman Douglas #Never Again Students

It was bad enough some months ago when WSJ columnist William McGurn was attacking Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller in his Main Street column ('Bob Mueller's sideshow, Oct. 31, p. A15.).  Mr. Mueller is a big guy and fearless prosecutor who can take care of himself (He also may want to check out McGurn's role in journalistic obstruction of justice on behalf of Donnie Dotard for consistently spinning bunkum on the Russia probe..)

Now, however, McGurn has come after the Parkland FL kids for their bravery and activism in confronting the maggots of the NRA. ('Our Childish Gun Debate', Feb. 28, p. A15)  McGurn began his attack  and I don't mince words - that's what I call denigrating the credibility of survivors and  activist students attempting to change the gun dynamic-  by defending the NRA's new queen of spin, Dana Loesch. This was when she - and fellow NRA slush fund taker Marco Rubio - appeared at a CNN Town Hall in Parkland.

The students singled out for McGurn's initial attacks were not named, but were identified by the questions asked one or both of the NRA tools, e.g.

A freshman had asked Loesch:

"Was the blood of my classmates and my teachers worth your blood money?"

And:

One Junior who survived the shooting dared to tell Rubio:

"When I look at you it's  difficult not to see Nikolas Cruz."

Let's take each of these in turn, and process they are coming from students at the school   who either lost classmates in the massacre   or survived themselves. This confers on their words special gravitas and meaning not available to anyone not there..  Given Loesch's role as a PR front person and spin meister, whose main job is to tamp down outrage by shifting blame - the freshman's question was totally justified. Hell, I would've asked it had I been in the frosh's place!

So also was the statement of the shooting  survivor at Rubio.  Given all Rubio has done is support AR-15 purchases in Florida, why would a victim not see Cruz in him, especially a traumatized victim?

Then Sheriff Scott Israel took fire because "he pointed fingers at everyone but himself".  Nope, he pointed them mainly at the gun sellers, the NRA (who prepped the AR ad "You are now issued your man card!")  and the ease with which a murderous assault weapon like the AR-15  could be purchased in his state and by someone as young as 18.

Anyway, McGurn concludes from this that the current debate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting is "guided by two broad principles":

1) The idea that the most important thing is to "do something".

2) That we ought to look to high schoolers for the answers.

Notice that no account is take whatsoever of the sophistication or knowledge level of these "high schoolers" which is arguably surpassing that of most adult Americans (generally found to read at about the 6th grade level if they read at all.)

McGurn then rubs rhetorical salt into the wounds when he continues:

"Quick show of hands: How may of you look to your teens for political wisdom? Say whether it's that daughter obsessing over Snapchat streaks or the son spending his days eating Doritos and binge- gaming 'Grand Theft Auto'"

But see, he's conflating the politically adept and savvy Parkland students with the knuckle dragging trolls who have attacked them  as "crisis actors."  THOSE are the sorry lot ensconced in their parents' basements munching Doritos and swigging Mountain Dew while they rape fifty virtual women on Grand Theft Auto.

Then McGurn goes from frying pan into fire when he  writes this codswallop about the Stonemn students:

"As terrible as their experiences were, the attack gives  them no special insight into the complex array of public policies that might have prevented the disaster.".

On the contrary, their experience -  especially the immediate survivors - gives them the deepest insight into exactly what the primary cause of the slaughter was: the too easy access and wide availability of the AR-15 and other assault weapons. The key factor- after you subtract the psychos, the background checks, the waiting times and all other secondary issues - is always the lethal weapons. Just ask Scotland after the Dunblane massacre  and Australia after the Port Arthur massacre -  both occurring in 1996.

In each case, the nation in question immediately could cut through the clutter and dross and see that the overwhelming factor was the weapon. Control the weapon and you control the carnage This is not rocket science.   Those Parkland students then, contrary to McGurn's spin,  have the most intimate insights into the events and from that know exactly what needs to be done:banning all assault rifles nationally like Maryland did last year at state level.

McGurn's most offensive and egregious spin came next when he appeared to put down the Rightist loons who were "missing the point' by accusing the students of being "actors" or using "scripted" remarks, i.e.presumably handed them by real liberal anti-gun activists. He wrote:

"These teens do not need to be scripted. Their youth and earnestness makes it all but impossible for any counter argument without looking indifferent to the horror  these kids have been through. If you don't agree with what they want they seem to suggest you are OK with mass shootings."

So McGurn damns them with a kind of faint praise (or fake pity) on account of their "violent experience", But he  also suggests no argument can be made against them because -  they have too much sympathy?!  This is a cop out only a toad like McGurn could make, especially when he actually followed it up by the earlier quoted BS, e.g. "Quick show of hands...how many of you look to teens for political advice etc."

In other words, McGurn isn't the least bit phased by the "earnestness" of the #NeverAgain students.  He just finds their arguments too intense, real and unchallengeable for his liking, so better to first suggest there are no counters that can be advanced, and second...hell they're mostly just teens playing video games and stuffing their faces with Doritos in their parents' basements - so why take advice from them? Transl. Why take their movement seriously at all, it could well as be a Tide pods eating contest. Besides it won't last. (Which is the take of way too many adults).

Disgusting, and the students themselves ought to be enraged  by this display of yellow op-ed journalism as well. But hey, for McGurn it's par for the course - especially when he's raging about how many fetuses need to be saved. (But evidently he doesn't care too much about the already born).

At the end, McGurn tries to turn the tables on all progressive opponents of these weapons by citing a Guardian UK writer (a "liberal",  of course) who:

"conceded she was shocked by how little evidence there was behind gun control policies."

But  he (and she)  may have missed the memo that there's a good reason for "little evidence" in circulation.. It has to do with the N.R.A.-backed Dickey Amendment, which was passed in 1996- named for the congress critter  who sponsored it, former Representative Jay Dickey, an Arkansas Republican..

It reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”. In other words, actual research was to be suppressed in the interest of the NRA gun lobby and culture.  Reinforcing this, reporter Sam Roberts wrote last year in The Times, that the legislation “stripped $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the precise amount budgeted for a study of the health effects of shootings.”

Had the Guardian liberal reporter not been hobbled and blinded by this reason for deficient information she'd have learned of a CDC finding from the early 90s that there are three times more homicides in families that own  guns than those that don't.

In the meantime, William McGurn at the very least owes those students at Stoneman an apology for the disparaging and vile way he put them down.

On the positive side of the news, Dick's Sporting Goods stores have now ceased all sales of assault style rifles.  On the negative side, we learned this a.m. (CBS) the guntards are again freaking out that their precious kill weapons will be seized so sales of AR-15s have now increased by threefold since the Parkland FLA shooting.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/miles-mogulescu/77940/gun-control-legislation-is-constitutional

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jan-dizard/77939/prayers-and-sensible-gun-regulations

Excerpt:

Let's be honest with one another. The sensible thing to do is to ban the private possession of high capacity, semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity semi-automatic pistols. Ban new sales and launch an aggressive program to buy back these guns. The deranged 19 year old who killed seventeen people did so in four minutes, getting off at least 100 hundred rounds. These weapons have no place in civil society. They are designed to inflict maximum damage to an enemy--they need to be restricted to the military and law enforcement personnel. Banning them won't stop suicides or "ordinary" homicides but experience shows that a ban will make mass shootings rare and less lethal.

I'm an avid bird hunter and have several shotguns, a couple of deer rifles, and a couple of handguns. I enjoy target shooting with friends. I am not anti-gun. But I am appalled by the NRA's and Republican allies' refusal to get assault weapons off the street. Sure, it's about mental illness but it's also about the GUN.

Easy access to these weapons of mass murder have nothing to do with insuring our freedom. In fact, they make us less free. The mass shootings of the past decade have blighted a generation of youngsters who have had to endure active shooter drills. When I was a kid, fire drills were occasions of levity, almost as good as recess. Ask yourself in which nation do school children feel freer from the specter of mass murder: Denmark or England or the U.S.?

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre In Florida - You Can Blame Governor Rick Scott Too!

Scene of bedlam at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, FL yesterday.

"Everybody's sayin' to themselves 'I wanna be safe. So my job as governor is to try to do everything I can to provide any services they need.  Ya know, hug people that wanna be hugged...."

 -  Gov. Rick Scott yesterday, after the massacre in Parkland, FL that claimed 17 lives, the worst high school shooting in American history.


First, let's make it clear the little scum ball who invaded Marjory Stoneman Douglas High and opened fire yesterday - killing 17 - is a maggot who deserves one of two ends: 1) Being fried in the Florida electric chair known as "Old Sparky" - maybe set it back up again after yrs. of disuse, or 2) being locked up in what - in the olden days - we called a "nut house". There given electric shock therapy several times a day while being kept in a strait jacket for the rest of his sorry ass life.

But while Nicholas Cruz will live in infamy along with the Columbine killers - who still cast a shadow over my state (Colorado)  - and is indeed the immediate source of the horrors that unfolded yesterday, we cannot let Florida's scumball Gov. Rick Scott off the hook. Not by a long shot, given Scott and his Repuke cabal in the Sunshine state have been responsible for passing some of the most lax gun laws in the nation.

This is important, because while the NRA bullshit lobby insists any new regulations - say strict licensing, fingerprinting   - won't do diddly, the state of Massachusetts and its own gun laws prove otherwise. As we learn from Wikipedia:

"Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.

All applications, interviews, fees, and fingerprinting are done at the local Police Department then sent electronically to the Massachusetts Criminal History Board for the mandatory background checks and processing. All approved applicants will receive their license from the issuing Police Department. All licensing information is stored by the Criminal History Board. Non residents who are planning on carrying in the state must apply for a temporary license to carry (LTC) through the State Police before their travel."

Now compare with Florida's lax laws, thanks to the likes of Rick Scott - who is convinced the most he can do for his state citizens is to dispense hugs and feel good platitudes:

Florida law prohibits localities from regulating firearms, other than with regards to zoning laws (i.e., for restricting where gun sellers may locate their businesses), the imposition of a 5 day waiting period to purchase firearms, and a background check for any sale of a firearm in the county where any part of the transaction occurs where the public has right of access.

Note carefully how this state lame law prohibits localities - like Parkland - from regulating firearms, i.e. restricting locations of gun sellers.  Wonder why the mass murderer Cruz found it so easy to get his AR-15? There's your answer. If you think that's atrocious, consider the state legislature - under pressure from Scott - is now considering legislation to do away with background checks entirely.

Let us note here  that the rate of gun deaths in MA is 2 per 100,000 compared to Florida's rate of 13.1 per 100,000. In other words, Florida's rate if more than six times greater. Why is that so? Is it because FLA has six times more mentally sick people? No, it's because Massachusetts has stiffer gun oversight. In Florida?  The wannabe killer just had to endure a five day wait and he completed a legal purchase. Now, put him instead in Massachusetts where he'd have had to first pass a state approved gun safety course, then be licensed and fingerprinted. Does anyone but a gun nut really believe he'd have done all that? But I submit it's precisely this rigorous process that weeds out nuts and criminals from the outset.

This isn't rocket science!

In a tweet this morning Trump made no mention of gun control, instead focusing on Cruz’s background. “So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior,” Trump wrote. “Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!”

  Off Donnie Dotard's criminal radar was how easy it was for the punk to get unlicensed access to the weapon of his choice in the state of Florida, to partly fulfill his proclaimed ambition of "being a professional school shooter."    But why be surprised that a criminal "president" - who's manifestly colluded with a foreign power to overthrow our election system  would be a fan of another criminal, Rick Scott.

 WOAAH! Excessive rhetoric? Nope! People need to grasp  Rick Scott is basically a criminal like Trump. When Rick Scott was in charge of Columbia HCA he bilk ed Medicare out of hundreds of millions and was fined heavily for it.  Indeed, he oversaw what has since become known as the largest Medicare fraud in  history. So in many respects, Scott and Trump are two peas in the same vermin pod. Noooooooo.....Scott didn't pull the trigger of that AR-15 that slaughtered those 17 victims. But, he did loosen the gun regulation laws to the point that a deranged maniac like Nicholas Cruz  could walk right into a gun shop or show and buy his choice of assault weapon. 

Cruz bought the damned weapon, but Rick Scott "left the door open"  so he could.

As Lawrence O'Donnell put it last night on his "Last Word":

"Governor Rick Scott of Florida has done everything he possible can to make sure that the AR-15 assault weapon  is easily obtainable by any mass murderer in America.  That has been the mission of Republicans like Rick Scott. The reason that weapon is available in Florida - over the counter for anyone 18 years of age or older - is because of politicians like Rick Scott, who has made sure the weapon is as easy to buy as an automobile."

O'Donnell then played a clip of this foul maggot governor being asked the following question by a reporter:

"What business does a 19 year old have with owning an AR-15 specifically?"

Realizing he was cornered like a rat, Scott tap danced all over the place, ending with some vapid remark along the lines of:  "We're gonna learn all the facts then we can determine the future ...you know,  how we can continue to make this place safe,"

How "to make this place safe?" You fucking bozo! You impose strict licensing laws like Massachusetts!  And then enforce them!

But like his fellow Florida imp - Marco Rubio - who also questions whether any gun law could work to save lives in Florida - Rick Scott has his balls in hock to the NRA. They own his ass like they own Rubio's and most of the poltroons that make up the Repuke Party.

Bear all this in mind as you further learn about this  tragedy which appears to be the eighth deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history and one of the worst ever school massacres.

When will Florida and the rest of the lax gun states get serious about protecting their citizens? Will it be after a heavily armed maniac barges into a nursery with a newly purchased AR- 15 (no background check) and slaughters 50 infants in their cribs? Janice doesn't believe things will change even then, and frankly, neither do I - so long as we keep putting verminous rats  like Rick Scott into office.

Footnote:

A study in the journal Health Affairs concluded that the United States has become “the most dangerous of wealthy nations for a child to be born into.”   According to the Health Affairs study. the homicide rate in this country is 49 times higher than in other rich countries,  This is one of three major reasons why the U.S. is the most" dangerous of wealthy nations for a child to be born into.”   The other two are: 1) the high rate of infant mortality and 2) the abnormally high rate of teen vehicular deaths.

The Charlottesville Clash - First Skirmish In The Second Civil War?

White Nationalists (Nazis)  and white supremacists gather in Charlottesville, VA.

Some of the injured tended to after one of the racists rammed them with a car.


White Nationalists march Friday night carrying torches onto the Univ. of Virginia campus in Charlottesville. The torch light ceremony reminded many of the Nazi torch light marches in the 1930s.

Even as a panel on CNN yesterday morning ruminated on whether the media ought to limit coverage of melees like in Charlottesville, Virginia some observers suspect the Second Civil War may have been born with that 2-day spectacle.  It all started on Friday night, during an unplanned (i.e. not properly scheduled)  torchlight parade,  reminiscent of many conducted by the Nazis in the 1930s. E.g. the scene below capturing a Nazi torch light parade outside Nuremberg in 1938:

In the Friday night  manifestation, the hundreds of far right marchers entered the University of Virginia campus, and set upon a much smaller group of counter protesters who were surrounding a statue of Thomas Jefferson. The Nazi-KKK terrorists beat the latter group with truncheons, poles and sticks leaving several bleeding as the vermin bellowed racist and white supremacist slogans. They also targeted the faces of counter protesting women with their mace cans. All of this to try to demonstrate against the removal of a statue of arch traitor Robert E. Lee.

Were the Right's Nazis, racists and fascists out to emulate their forbears? Without a doubt. If not, why were so many wearing Nazi swastikas and Nazi helmets, gear? As I have repeatedly pointed out on this blog the National Socialism of the Nazis is directly tied to the RIGHT end of the political spectrum and the displays on Friday, Saturday further prove it.

Just before 11am Saturday, a formation of about 200 white supremacists were briefly halted by protesters before moving towards the south-east gate. One of their number was seen to mace a young woman who approached the group. By the time they made it in, there were well over 500 far-right protesters in the park, with about 1,000 counter-protesters in the street.

This parade was watched over by Virginia state police, police officers, and armed “Three Percent” right extremist militia members, who were dressed in fatigues and openly carrying rifles. One of the strong objections of protestors was the appearance of the latter group, mocking military and genuine law enforcement.

Offering explicitly fascist chants like “You will not replace us” and “Blood and soil”, they had been met by counter-protesters seeking to prevent their entrance to the park. Some counter-protesters, including many marching under red and black antifascist (Antifa) banners, sought to block the streets. This led to altercations with far-right groups, who were seen using chemical weapons, sticks and shields on their opponents.

Indeed, throughout Saturday morning -  leading up to the clearing of Emancipation Park -  massed contingents from neo-Confederate and neofascist groups such as the League of the South,  as well as the National Socialist Movement, had made their way along Market Street towards the park’s entrances.  They were determined to continue their ghastly protest all the while chanting "You will not replace us!"   and "Jews will not replace us!"

Then soon after, real citizens - unable to stomach any more of this hatred and being smacked with shields and sticks - let loose on the racists and fascists.   The latter, however, as is their wont - chose to fight dirty and diabolically with one of their number driving a car straight into a group of people peacefully protesting against them , killing one person (32 year old Heather Heyer)  and injuring 19.  The driver (James Alex Fields Jr.)  reversed out of the devastating scene and drove off, the front end of his car all smashed.

The death was announced in a tweet by the Charlottesville mayor, Mike Signer, who wrote: “I am heartbroken that a life has been lost here. I urge all people of good will – go home.”

The governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe,  earlier declared a state of emergency, even as he deplored the outside terrorists and rabble that had descended on the progressive college town to wreak their racist havoc. Meanwhile, in classic mealy-mouthed, weasel fashion  Trump speaking from Bedminster, New Jersey, condemned the “violence on many sides”,  saying:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” Trump added that this has been “going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. A long, long time.” 

Neglecting to call out the hate mongers which thereby would have conceded the hate on display had been spiked with his own ascension, as he coddled and played to the memes of  white supremacy, even putting one of this lot (Steve Bannon) into the White House.

A White House spokesperson later amplified slightly  Trump's weasel words, saying: “The president was condemning hatred, bigotry and violence from all sources and all sides. There was violence between protesters and counter-protesters today.”

Former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, a Trump supporter who was in Charlottesville Saturday, quickly replied. “I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists,” he wrote.

Thereby once and for all ripping off the veneer of deceit concerning the malevolent forces that ushered Trump and his cabal into office.  Indeed, dozens of the white nationalists in Charlottesville were wearing red Make America Great Again hats. Asked by a reporter in New Jersey whether he wanted the support of white nationalists, Trump did not respond.  He didn't have to. Obviously he extols and embraces these knuckledraggers and their devotion as much as he does Putin.  As WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin put it on AM JOY yesterday, "Trump has been playing footsie with these White Nationalists all during his campaign."  Ms. Rubin added that Trump "considers them part of his base" so of course he doesn't want to offend them or upset them.

Trump rightly faced criticism for his failure to directly denounce the white supremacist demonstrators.   It was THEIR side after all who carried rifles around posing as a "militia" and their side that drove the car into the crowd. It was their side also that maced innocent protestors who merely called out the racists for what they were: Nazi and KKK vermin. By any proportionate reckoning these vermini were the violent ones wreaking havoc, yet Trump like his rabble followers sought to portray the day's events in terms of false equivalence.

To their credit, more than a few Republicans correctly perceived this and commented. Senator Marco Rubio , for example, tweeted that it was important for Trump to describe the events as a “terror attack by white supremacists”.

Sen. Corey Gardner of our state (CO) also didn't mince words, saying Trump "needed to call evil by its name" adding:

"This is nothing short of domestic terrorism and should be named as such...These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism"

The police declared an unlawful assembly alert and a spokesman for the force said the Virginia national guard “will closely monitor the situation and will be able to rapidly respond and provide additional assistance if needed”.

The car attack came about two hours after state police in riot gear had cleared Emancipation Park, the site of the Robert E Lee statue. (The city’s decision in February to remove the statue drew earlier protests by the “Alt-right” and the Ku Klux Klan.)   The murdering degenerate who was responsible was identified yesterday as 20-year old James Alex Fields Jr.   Incredibly some deluded Reich bloggers  have even insisted (with presumably straight face) Fields was trying to "get away" and save his life!!!  Hey, if he was trying to make an escape he drove in the wrong direction! Also ignored: the car had been weaponized, revved up into a 'muscle car' for the specific purpose of causing harm.

Samantha Bloom, the mother of this terrorist turd, interviewed with clip shown on CNN - first confessed to not knowing anything about her spawn's affiliations or interests.  But later, The Daily Beast reported that Bloom, said she told her son to be “careful” if he chose to join the protests. “[And] if they’re going to rally to make sure he’s doing it peacefully,”   Looks like he didn't take mommy's advice.

Looks like she also never consulted with Fields' high school history teacher, Derek Weimer, who stated Sunday that Fields' was "enamored of the Nazis and infatuated with Adolf Hitler".

One of the Alt-Right speakers, the pro-Nazi  Richard Spencer, bawled that he had been maced on the way into the park and lashed out at police and city authorities. Recall this scumball headed the Alt Right group - the National Policy Institute. He's also been caught  in full throated homage to Nazi ideals and agendas with 'Hail Trump!" (Ger. "Heil Trump!") salutes and "Sieg Heils"  See e.g. this bunch at their recent gathering in D.C. after Trump's rise to power:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

This maggot had the nerve to bellyache:

“Never in my life have I felt like the government was cracking down on me until today.  We came in peace and we were effectively thrown to the wolves.”

Aw,  BWAAHAHAHA!! Forget the drama of this drama queen, the police chief noted that they did not intervene until they saw cause to do so. Also, these idiots didn't follow the chief's directions for which park entrances to use - thereby coming into direct contact with counter protesters (mainly clergy and UVA students)

Besides,  as one NAACP spokeswoman noted,  the Alt-Right rally wasn't about exercising free speech but fomenting violence and discord in a peaceful, progressive college community.

Even the right-leaning WSJ saw it that way in its editorial  ('The Poison Of Identity Politics', p. A16) today. Noting:

"The particular pathology on display in Virginia was the White Nationalist Movement...They alone are to blame for the violence that occurred when one of their own drove a car into peaceful protestors, killing a young woman and injuring 19.

The Spencer crowd courts publicity and protests and they chose the progressive university town of Charlottesville with malice aforethought.  They used unsubtle Ku Klux Klan symbolism of torches in a Friday night march, and they sought to appear as political martyrs as a way to recruit more alienated young white men."

Who are these "alienated young white men"? According to author J.D. Vance ("Hillbilly Elegy") interviewed on CBS this morning, they are "mostly from well to do middle class families". However, they suffer from at least one major detriment or flaw in their lives: e.g.  can't get along with or form relationships  with women, can't fit in at their jobs, unable to complete an Army tour (like Fields), can't get along socially other than in online rat warrens (reddit, Breitbart, Daily Stormer) where they exchange hate with each other. In many ways their alienation is similar to those disaffected youngsters in Europe and elsewhere that seek meaning in their lives with Isis.

Author Vance insists that we "must not stereotype them as knuckle dragging yokels" but how else portray these losers when they conduct themselves like such?  Military fatigues, helmets, shields and mace cans? Give me a break!  If it walks like a duck, quacks like one and acts like one then it is one.

Spencer, for his part,  vowed his gaggle of outed online scum (as from 'Daily Stormer')  would not back down from protesting against the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee. This is the same arch -traitor whose statue was already removed from Lee Circle in New Orleans several months ago. . Then when Spencer mentioned Mayor Signer by name, the crowd chanted “Jew! Jew! Jew!”

Elsewhere, a group of clergy including Dr Cornel West linked arms at the top of stairs leading to the park in its southeast corner. The Rev Seth Wispelwey, of Sojourners United Church of Christ in Charlottesville, said of the faith-based action: “We’re here to counteract white supremacy, and to let people know that it is a system of evil and a system of sin.”

The biggest trope exploded in the Charlottesville clashes? That the Left is the side "hobbled by identity politics". This canard was given undeserved attention in a long essay  (WSJ Review, p. C1 Aug. 12-13) entitled 'The Liberal Crack-Up' by Mark Lilla  - a "professor of humanities"  and ostensible liberal - at Columbia University.  In it he claimed:

"Liberals have lost the public's confidence by embracing the divisive, zero sum world of identity politics."

Ironically,  the piece came out almost as the Right's tribal nuts were demonstrating identity politics on steroids with their assorted Nazis, KKK racists, Confederates and Alt-Right screwballs wreaking havoc on the U VA campus.  As UVA professor Larry Sabato put it on CNN yesterday "it sickened me to my core".   (Sabato's residence is right near the Jefferson rotunda where the marchers passed by).

If ever there was a manifestation of white trash, pro-Trump identitarian politics it was in what we beheld in Charlottesville, spurred on by Trump. This glorified man-baby swine hybrid provided cover for his hateful spawn by not specifically calling them out, opting instead for the palsied narrative of moral equivalence. Even at that he was unable to straight deliver his message, he had to read it from a paper.

72 years ago the U.S. smashed Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist vermin, so the inquiring,  genuine American citizen is correct to ask why we see their latter day supporters prancing around a Virginia university campus now carrying Nazi flags, e.g.

Even Sen. Orrin Hatch had to tweet that "my brother didn't lose his life fighting Hitler to have to Nazi ideas go unchallenged  at home".    On the positive side, the most gratifying image of all arrived yesterday when a young woman tackled Jason Kessler the rally organizer, who made the mistake of returning to the scene  of his crime:


Meanwhile, in Germany yesterday, a 41-year old American was punched out by a passerby German for giving the Nazi salute. (Germans, unlike too many 'Muricans, don't take kindly to saluting the Fuhrer). The Nazi salute — the right arm straight and angled slightly up, palm down — was used as a greeting and a way of expressing devotion to Adolf Hitler under the Third Reich. Germany outlawed the salute after World War II, along with Holocaust denial and other symbols and signals associated with the Nazis. A conviction can carry a prison sentence of up to three years.

We need new laws like this now in the U.S. of A. to deter our homegrown Nazis from projecting their hate, like they did in Charlottesville.

Will a Second Civil War come out of it? Who knows? But as one panel member (Jennifer Rubin) put in on AM Joy yesterday a.m. it does not bode well if Trump himself is unable to call out white supremacy and domestic terror when it arises - especially as he'd do it in a NY minute if a black person or Muslim had rammed into a crowd with a car. (Note: Trump finally did stop using weasel words today, but it is too little, way  too late. As Mayor Signer put it, he blew a good opportunity to show leadership and instead kowtowed to the haters. Hell, his own daughter Ivanka and Jeff Sessions beat him in naming the culprits).

Whether Charlottesville marks the opening clash in a 2nd Civil War in the end depends on whether ALL  Americans return to their senses after this incident. If it merely emboldens a hard core set of white supremacy Trump supporters (or a lot of others who are invested in Breitbart, and fake news)  then the stage is set for future clashes. These are also likely to get ever more violent, possibly with guns used (guns were toted by the 'Three Percent')  racists in Charlottesville).  Indeed, the "Unite the Right" bunch that was finally forced to leave the campus has vowed to return with larger numbers. Let us hope they don't bring loaded weapons with them.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/74538/welcome-to-donald-trumps-america

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/74539/american-carnage-white-punks-on-parade

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/74540/a-national-calamity-in-the-making

Will Mitt's Anti-Trump Broadsides "Shake Some Sense" Into Trump Supporters?

"Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. He's playing the members of the American public for suckers. He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.....the bullying, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics...is not the temperament of the stable, thoughtful person we need as leader." - Mitt Romney yesterday at Hinckley Institute

Former Reep Presidential candidate Mitt Romney  tore into The Donald yesterday morning leaving no insult unmentioned and indirectly calling down Trump supporters to halt their addiction to the guy. But will it work?  Will the Trumpy addicts be swayed by Mitt's 17 minute diatribe? Somehow, given nothing else has phased them, I doubt it.

Addressing a Republican National Committee (RNC) meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, Romney opened his speech by drawing on Ronald Reagan’s framing of the 1964 election as “a time for choosing”. The 2016 election, he argued, posed a similar crossroads for the American people. The Mittster conceded:

“I’m no Ronald Reagan, and this is a different moment in time, but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time of choosing – one that will have profound consequences for the Republican party and, more importantly, for our country,”

Make no mistake Romney’s speech lived up to all the hype, including lacerating almost every Trump invention, idea or speculation - from Trump University to closed (bankrupt)Trump casinos and everything in between.. Portions of it had already been released to stations (e.g. MSNBC) hours before he delivered it. On 'Morning Joe' it was noted that the purpose was to "shake up Trump supporters and get some sense into them".  

The speech itself marked an unprecedented moment in American politics, with a growing number of prominent Republicans now desperately seeking to stop in his tracks a candidate who increasingly resembles the presumptive nominee. Romney laid out a case that was in equal parts scathing and urgent, while stating that “the prospects for a safe and a prosperous future are greatly diminished” if Republicans were to nominate Trump.

Indeed, Trump's Tuesday victories even have the Europeans going ballistic and dredging up memories of another charismatic, bombastic demagogue from 80 years ago.

The alarm has even made its way to the front pages of Der Spiegel, with the red-lettered word ('Wahnsinn' or 'Crazy Man' ) at the bottom.


Although Romney did not offer an endorsement, he praised candidates Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Ted Cruz and essentially suggested voters should support each of the three and pave the way for a brokered convention. Countering the rabid enthusiasm of Trumpies, Romney declared:

“One of these men should be our nominee,”

Noting the real estate mogul would precipitate another economic recession and weaken America’s standing overseas. Then adding as evidence for Trump's disqualification:

 “He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”

Thursday’s speech was the first time Romney has delivered such comprehensive put down remarks on the state of the 2016 race. Romney weighed in on almost every would be pratfall from Trump’s debunked claim that “thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the September 11 terrorist attacks to his mocking of Senator John McCain for being captured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, to the mockery of a NY Times disabled reporter,  e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/trumps-mocking-of-handicapped-reporter.html

“Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics,” Romney said.

Romney’s appeal to reject Trump arrived less than 48 hours after the splenetic front runner picked up overwhelming victories on Super Tuesday, as Republicans in 11 states went to the polls. But this was not before other conservative media "powerhouses" -  including The Wall Street Journal  - had weighed in, e.g. with Trump-skewering columns by Brett Stephens and Holman Jenkins, Jr..

Brett Stephens in his 'Staring At The Conservative Gutter', wrote (after the KKK misstep):

"It would be terrible to think that the Left was right about the Right all these years. Nativist bigotries must not be allowed to become the animating spirit of the Republican Party. If Donald Trump becomes the candidate he will not win the Presidency but he will help vindicate the Left's ugly indictment. It will be left to decent conservatives to pick up the pieces".

Thereby implying anyone who votes for Trump is not a "decent conservative".

Holman Jenkins Jr. was even more blunt about Trump followers in his WSJ piece ('Trump Voters Need a Mirror', March 2, p. A15):

"To be honest and impolitic, the Trump voter smacks of a child who unleashes recriminations against mommy and daddy because the world is imperfect"

Adding:

"Until Trump and his fans show otherwise, he seems but the latest vessel of denial for voters who don't want responsibility. They want mommy and daddy"

Ouch! But columns like these two helped set the stage for Mitt Romney's lashing of Trump Thursday morning as well as the subtext  for his supporters to wake up from their agitated stupor. Which, let's face it, could also be fed by the desire for an emotional opposite to Obama's "no drama", Spockian, highly nuanced reactions and demeanor. (See: 'President Obama Created Donald Trump', WSJ, p. A13, today). This was an effect even moderate hack Joe Klein warned about in a TIME essay several years ago.

With the probability of a Trump nomination on the rise, the GOP establishment and its media have clearly been desperately in search of an alternative but left without a clear consensus candidate. At the same time, their columnists and spokespersons are incredulous people could actually be taking Trump seriously to run the country. The unspoken, unwritten subtext is 'What the hell are they drinking or smoking?'.  Even moderate media spokesperson(former anchor for NBC)  Tom Brokaw wondered Tuesday night if these supporters had lost touch with reality and didn't understand our checks and balances in the federal system.

"What if Trump can't deliver?" he asked. "What if our dispersed system of power prevents him from getting any of his promises done, like building the wall? What will they do?"

Good question! What indeed? Will they riot in the streets and screech how they were betrayed? Will they express severe buyer's remorse and never vote for anyone again - establishment or other?  But the fact is, Brokaw is correct, and they are all being set up for a massive letdown because the universe in which Trump could carry out his phantasmagorias is not the one that exists. The one we inhabit. . Because short of a takeover of government by Trump there is no way any of his claims to action can be manifest.

Romney didn't hesitate to tell the Hinckley site crowd of 500 that the party’s focus should be on defeating Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton,  “but a Trump nomination enables her victory”. (Well, not quite! At least one rep from Emily's List two weeks ago (on 'All In')  expressed fear and trepidation she would confront a "mad monkey with a gun" and one never knows what such a creature might do.)

Meanwhile, Romney himself, anticipating the Donald's reaction,  asked:

“Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low-road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.”

In fact, Trump referred in a speech to his endorsement of Mitt back in 2012 claiming "If I ordered Mitt to drop to his knees he would have".

So much for vindicating what Romney projected.

Sadly, none of these efforts is likely to have any effect at halting Trump's momentum. So long as his many followers want the macho "tough guy" or strong man to take all the bad guys down. So long as so many are addicted to this sort of brash approach Trump will continue on his road to the magic number of 1237 delegates - which if reached will commit those delegates to stick with him and not to bolt - say for Cruz or Kasich.

As Der Spiegel put it:

"Trump takes every opportunity in this campaign to portray his country as a down-and-out weakling. According to his strategy, when a nation's feeling of self-worth has hit rock bottom, it experiences a growing desire to overcome the "status quo" -- and for a strong man at the top."

SO long as so many believe the Trump narrative that the nation is a weakling, his coalition will continue to build on itself - and may even overturn Hillary's plans to make history. The only way to prevent that would be for every youthful Sanders' voter-supporter to throw his or lot in for HRC if and when Bernie departs.

Whether they actually will is another question.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/66263/an-open-letter-to-evangelical-trump-voters 

WSJ's Dan Henninger: Trump Running As An Independent Within Republican Party

I really had to laugh yesterday a.m. as I read the WSJ front page piece ('Some Married Couples Vow, Til Death- Or Donald - Do We Part')  on how married Repubs have to now avoid watching political TV at the same time, if one is a Trumpster.  The piece focused on several couples in different cities, including one featuring a "normal" wife who blurted: "I don't know who he is any more. Is this the man I married?"   Her hubby meanwhile, fairly gushed over the attributes of the Donald including saying he was a "breath of fresh air" and now he will "go all the way".

Well, maybe, unless the GOP establishment can find some way to halt his Donald Trump steamroller.

Meanwhile, the pundits and media have been scratching heads furiously to try to figure out why so many are rendered delirious and hang on his every word. Two nights ago, one night before last night's GOP debacle....errrr....debate....MSNBC's 'All In' featured a clip from VOX trying to explain Trump's appeal - across all class lines, ideological lines and even education. We learned:

"the psychological trait undergirding Trump's popularity is authoritarianism — a personality style characterizing people who are particularly sensitive to signs that the moral order is falling apart. When they perceive that the world as they know it is descending into chaos, they glorify their in-group, become highly intolerant of those who are different, and feel drawn to strong leaders who promise to fix things, and who do not seem shy about using force to do so."


Not long ago, The Economist (Dec. 5, 2015, p. 30)  posited Trumpsters as single mindedly seeking "scapegoats" for the nation's ills - including Obama, immigrants, Muslims, and other perceived "out groups" and also these supporters are:

"Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare."

All this has, in turn, has incited controversy over whether Trump is a genuine conservative politician or a poseur, a pretender. Some opponents, including in the conservative media, have gone so far as to label him a "Clinton plant" to put up a candidate sure to be overwhelmed in the general election so that if he loses "the GOP will look like a forest shredded by a tornado"

Those words were written by the Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger  (Feb. 25, p. A11) who recognizes the threat if Trump is nominated and gets blown out as many predict. But at the same time he offered perhaps the most insightful take on the Trump candidacy as he noted (ibid.):

"Donald Trump is properly understood as running an independent candidacy from inside the formal structure of the Republican Party, as Mike Bloomberg did to run as Mayor of New York City. Nothing remotely resembling a political party is associated with Mr. Trump."

This is important to explore as it also shows the basis for Trump support. Henninger is averring that Trump is in reality an independent - with no allegiance to Republican Party principles or agendas. In this sense, we recognize that all political parties are formal political structures with consistent principles and platforms reached by consensus by the party's Pooh-Bahs. But Trump is outside this constellation of insiders and that's exactly what energizes his supporters.  He is also beholden to no one for his financial support so doesn't have to abide by what one or other Pooh-Bah dictates or tries to impose.  Again, it is this independence from the Beltway insider network that excites his supporters.

If Henninger's take is correct, and I believe it is, then if the GOP attempts to undermine Trump or contest his nomination, he will break off and go the independent route- fulfilling the role that he actually represents. At that juncture his independent candidacy will itself become formal and no longer a 'Trojan horse' within the formal party structure.

The problem is that not only will Trump likely lose the general election, but also peel off enough GOP votes (like Ross Perot did in 1992) to cause the Republican "formal" candidate - whether Rubio or Cruz - to lose as well.

Super Tuesday will certainly show who the pretenders are and whether The Donald's subversive indy candidacy within the Repub party really has momentum.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/66178/the-gop-debate-another-roiling-party-collapse

Conservative Establishment & Its Media Grow More Hysterical At Trump's Rise

WSJ's Brett Stephens - wrote a blistering polemic against Trump and "Trumpkins" yesterday.

Even before Donald Trump's landslide victory in the Nevada caucuses last night the knives of the conservative media (and even center-right media) and the GOP establishment were out in force trying to undermine the blustery real estate mogul's creds.

Exhibit 'A' was WSJ columnist Brett Stephens' article 'The Trumpkins' Lament'  wherein he quoted noted Right wing talk radio shock jocks, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin - who ridiculed the notion Trump is a real conservative.  Quoting Limbaugh (referencing Trump's blaming Bush Jr. for 9/11, e.g. "it happened on his watch":

"Trump sounded like any average host on MSNBC and he defended Planned Parenthood in language used by the Left".

And then quoting the even more irascible Levin:

"He sounds like a radical kook. To have the leading Republican nominee for President of the United States to make these kinds of statements - and he's even been praised by Code Pink and every left wing kook organization that hates America, To have him praised for what he said? For what?"

Stephens is not sympathetic to the whining of these radio jocks, observing:

"Where were the Messrs. Levin and Limbaugh last summer when the Trump candidacy was still a big  soap bubble waiting to be popped by the likes of them?"

In other words, the two Right wing blowhards had the ability to halt and maybe overturn the Trump bandwagon but didn't.  Hence, it's too late for these two original "Trumpkins" to be lamenting his rise now. 

Still, Stephens holds out hope that the lone "establishment" guy - Marco Rubio - can prevail. He writes:

"It is a lucky thing for conservatives that the likeliest alternative to Mr. Trump is 'the very establishment Republican', Marco Rubio, the non-jerk of the season who could actually win in November".

Echoing the conservative media's polls (e.g. WSJ/NBC from 2/21) that Trump has even higher negatives among the general electorate (33%) than Hillary (13%) and also much higher opposition in his own party. In other words, polling discloses even if the anti-establishment Bernie Sanders doesn't win, his supporters will still vote for Hillary by 79%-19%, while the voters for other GOP candidates would only turn to Trump by 51- 39%.  In other words, Hillary grabs more of the leftover Sanders' votes than the Donald does of those other GOP candidates who drop out.

Hence, the conservative media conclusion he can't win in November because he can't get the general support he needs to beat Hillary. (Now the presumptive Dem nominee, and certainly from her superdelegate count).

As another WSJ columnist (Gerald Seib, Feb. 22, p. A4) also notes:

"there is little consolidation in the anti-Trump lanes and still too many of them to suit party establishment figures eager to stop Mr. Trump"

Adding:

"Big money and big establishment support will be flowing to Mr. Rubio in coming days; the establishment will effectively anoint him the alternative to Mr. Trump".

A WSJ editorial, meanwhile ('America's Moment of Trump'),  seems to blame a certain core of Trump voters who it terms "confirmed cliff divers".  I.e. jumping off a high cliff with no thought whatever of Trump's capability to win in November. The Journal's consistent knocks have been that Trump isn't a genuine conservative - even economically.

WSJ's Greg Ip writes,  for example (Feb. 18, p. A2):

"Thus far there is no coherent economics evident in the policies of Mr. Trump."

Noting - like other commentators - that Trump's tax plan would blow a hole in the budget bigger than the Donald's ego. (And then the media establishment has the gall to describes Sanders' plans as 'pie in the sky' or 'unworkable').

Numerous other WSJ analyses as well as one appearing in the Financial Times yesterday a.m. ('FT View: How To Stop Trump')  point out that Trump is exploiting a deep seated anger, perhaps even rage, in a sector of the electorate. The FT observed that there seems to be scant ideology shared by the supporters, and more an enthusiastic embrace of the Donald's yen for 'uncouth rhetoric' and 'un-PC zingers'.  In many respects, Trump appears to be channeling that segment's Id or even "hate" of whatever - maybe Obama, maybe Dems, or the political establishment itself.

Hence the drive to try to disrupt Trump's momentum and ultimately knock him off his track to the nomination. The FT, for example, advocates the media and other pols using Trump's own uncouth language and zinger style against him. Be uncouth, up to a point. My problem with that is what is "up to a point" and why would anyone believe it'd convince Trumpies to back off? Clearly, if some uncouth establishment alternative existed he would already be embraced as the front runner. The NV win shows this is a myth, also that the Cuban upstart Marco Rubio is not that guy.

Trump, according to the FT, The Economist, and even WSJ, is giving bombastic voice to powerful anger seething in the 30-40 percent of GOP voters backing him. Those media mavens and the conservative establishment are hoping fervently that the other 60-70 percent (of non-Trump voters) will keep the faith by adhering to the party's stated aims and real conservative norms,  not blindly jump ship for Trump.

But that remains to be seen, and it could just be a lot of wishful thinking.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/66121/the-end-of-the-establishment